What if We’re Wrong?
I just finished reading Finally Feminist by John Stackhouse. It is an interesting read if you are working through the biblical arguments for or against egalitarianism. Before I come to any definite conclusions of my own, I still need to mull over some things. But I have had this thought.
For each viewpoint–egalitarianism or complimentarianism–what if they’re wrong? If the egalitarians find out one day that they were wrong, what has ultimately been the consequence? I guess you could say it has resulted in an inaccurate portrayal of Christ and His church, since marriage is a picture of that. What else? Too much freedom has been given. Women have been allowed to do things that biblically, they ought not to do, like preach. Or maybe they have been allowed to serve communion. Or hand out bulletins. All in error.
What if the complimentarians are wrong? Then they have been guilty of oppression. They have held back an entire people group–half of the population of the earth, in fact. Not only have they kept women silent who may have a gift of preaching, which is the most obvious example of what women are currently not allowed to do, but they have not allowed women to hold the office of deacon, or to serve on committees, or in some cases to even hold certain jobs outside the church. Some take it so far as to treat women almost as property of the men they married.
Clearly I am not God, and I do not presume to be. I don’t want to sound like I know how He would react to any sin. But in my feeble human mind, I can’t help but think that the sin of oppression would be viewed a lot more seriously than the sin of granting too much freedom. In Jesus’s earthly ministry, He spoke against those who would oppress–the Pharisees. I wonder if my own denomination, the PCA, is going to find one day that they were guilty of oppressing women unbiblically? I don’t know. I’m still thinking through the issue. And for now, I’m wondering if one or the other view is in error, which is the most or least Christ-like?
By the way, for further reading, it is always interesting to visit Bayly blog and see how some PCA ministers treat and think about women. (Thankfully this in no way resembles the way my own pastor and session treat women.) Then be sure to check out Indelible Grace to see a discussion that includes comments that Tim deleted from his own blog.
April 9th, 2007 at 8:13 am
At our PCA church, one of our elders is clearly an egalitarian. He and the pastor disagree on this issue, and yet they have allowed freedom for this disagreement, and it doesn’t stop him from serving as an elder. I’m not sure which idea I believe yet, but it’s been helpful to see the gracious way both are included in our church. Not that there’s women preaching or anything, it seems more about marriages, but at least some open discussion / acknowledgment.
April 9th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Hi, thanks for the link to my blog. Isn’t Carolyn Custis James also part of the PCA? She is very pro-women in ministry, though, like Anne Graham Lotz (both of whom the Baylys don’t care for) I seriously doubt she would approve of female elders and pastors. But these complementarian beliefs of James and Lotz don’t stop them from doing what I perceive as some fine work, even though I don’t always agree with everything they say.
April 9th, 2007 at 10:59 am
This review and subsequent questions would fit in great with the discussions going on here:
http://truewomanhood.wordpress.com/
Would you mind if I link to your post? Just e-mail me if it’s okay. Thanks! I always appreciate reading your thoughts!
April 10th, 2007 at 9:01 am
“What if we’re wrong?”….. a better question might be, what if both sides are wrong? The Bayly Brothers et al use their exegesis of the first chapters of Genesis to describe what they believe is the “Holy Spirit’s doctrine of sexuality” (yep, that’s what they call their doctrine of father-rule: the Baylys are apparently now claiming divine inspiration.)
But, what if those passages in Genesis ARE teaching us to be complementarian in our view of marriage, but eglatarian in our view of the sexes in general?
When the events in the first part of Genesis happened, Adam and Eve were the only two people on earth. The passages describing their relationship of necessity are descriptive both of the relationship of the world’s first married couple to one another, and of the relationship between the sexes at that time, because at the time, there was no difference. Adam and Eve were IT. But after other people had been born, other relationships between men and women became possible. It became possible for a man and a woman to interact together as mother/son, brother/sister, cousin/ cousin, and eventually, stranger/stranger. To ascribe the same dynamic found in marriage to the relationship between two strangers seems ridiculous at best and perverted at worst.
In other words, the Baylys claim that because of the relationship between Adam and Eve a wife should love her husband submissively, AND a husband should love his wife sacrificially. So far so good, but they go on, saying that this also means that all women are to be under –ie, be submissive to — all men in the social order, for all time (I assume they also mean that all men should sacrificially love all women as well, but somehow they never quite go there.)
So, think about it– can the relationship between Adam and Eve be extended to the relationship of all men to all women, married or not? Should all the men in town love every woman in town sacrificially, and should all women submit submit themselves to every man they meet?
That comes pretty close to the ideas behind the “community of women”, as notoriously practiced by Jan Matthys, Jan Bockelson, and their Anabaptists followers in the rebellion at Munster.
April 12th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
If egals are wrong, it’s not because they are “rebellious” or have “an agenda.” (Two accusations I’m very tired of hearing.) Most egals I know believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. So if they’re wrong, it’s almost because they have too big a view of God … because they overestimate their freedom in Christ … because they have too broad a view, too high an aspiration, of what it is to be a new creation in Christ.
If comps are wrong, it’s because they have too narrow a view of freedom in Christ, too small a vision of what it is to be a new creation in Christ. They are still operating under the chains of the law, and they are shackling other with them. The consequences are that many, many opportunities have been lost to bring people to Christ, to minister to people, etc. The Holy Spirit has been quenched.
Like you, Chewymom, I think if the comps are wrong, it’s far more serious.
I decided long ago that when I am truly on the fence about any issue, I would rather land on the side of the fence that is most loving, life-giving, expansive, and promotes freedom, instead of landing on the side of the fence that is bound by fear and fences.
Also, I have often asked this question of comps, and have never gotten a satisfactory answer: if women preaching and leading is SIN, what are the consequences? The consequences of the sin of premarital sex, for instance, is STDs, unplanned pregnancy, etc. The consequences of the sin of gossip are ruined reputations and damaged relationships. What are the consequences of the sin of women preaching and leading? People come to Christ, are spiritually fed, etc. (Yes, leadership can be corrupt and teaching can be false, but that can be the case with either male or female.) I just don’t see any negative, pervasive consequences if women lead/teach.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Would the basic sin on either side be disobedience to a command from a holy God? Wouldn’t that be enough? And what if a complimentarian has too hight a view of a holy God that they wouldn’t want to presume a liberty. Because He is holy and before Him all flesh must keep silent. I don’t think that when we stand before this holy God we aren’t going to be too worried about who committed the “worst” type of sin. I am not bound by fear and fences. I have perfect freedom in Him to be all that He has made me to be. I fall too short of that as it is, and that is why I need Christ.
Light, you are doing the same characterization of comps. that you accuse them of doing to you. I don’t believe that it rebellion that will make Christians have different point of views about things. I believe it is sin and the fall that we still struggle against and because we are all still seeing through a glass darkly. We don’t tithe and don’t have a strict view of the Lord’s day even though we are PCA and in our church these things are taught. This is not because of rebellion but because of conclusions my seminary trained husband has come to through much reading and studying.
I know you are asking for grace for your position, but you need to extend it too. Your comments above are condescending. You might not have meant them to be, but your “I’m taking the higher road” attitude does nothing for your position. You are accusing fellow believers of being unloving and narrowminded and judging them with an unjust measure.
What would the consequences be? Isn’t disobedience enough. Your arguement is purely pragmatic. If it is wrong it is wrong. It doesn’t matter if the consequences end up to be an STD. Unless a man or woman strive lawfully they will not receive the reward.
My concern is not who is right or wrong even though it is important to seek after the truth. My concern right now is the division and lack of grace that Christians are showing each other in their characterizations of those who are on the other side. And I mean this for both sides.
Dear sisters in Christ, let us strive for a spirit of unity in the bond of peace.
Forgive me if I have offended in any way.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
WOW. Great conversation…good thoughts. It’s so true, chewy and Light, that the consequences are…what?
(Btw, I think that the stronger patriarchalists would say that the consequences of letting women lead are ____ (fill in the blank with every societal ill you can think of). I mean, how many times have we heard/read that the problems with society today all stem from feminism, blah blah blah…)?
(Molly, peeking in—thanks for the nomination, btw-chewy!)
April 13th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Gee, I just got back from teh Bayly Blog link you gave… That reminds me why I’m not hanging out much in the blogosphere these days… Sheesh! There is no possible way one can have any sort of constructive conversation in a situation like that. THey already know everything, and they already know exactly what you think (or so they think) if you differ. Ugh! It’s like a person needs to go eat a big green salad after reading something like that post, just to detoxify from the sludge.
(I know people who believe much the same things as the Bayly brothers when it comes to a “woman’s place,” but they manage to share it with a good deal of love and respect towards all sides…and I so appreciate that)…
April 14th, 2007 at 7:51 am
Marcy, That’s neat that you do have some diversity on your session! We may have one who is more egalitarian, but he definitely keeps that view completely to himself.
Lynn, I heard CCJ speak a few years ago, way before I even knew there was an “issue” outside of “liberal/conservative” circles, and her talk was so…freeing! She definitely encourages women to THINK and to KNOW our theology!
Allison, Thanks for the repost. I enjoyed exploring that blog!
Light, The more I understand grace and see God’s grace in my own life, the more I lean toward the side of grace. I had never thought of that in regards to women until I discovered the Baylys, honestly. Wouldn’t they be so happy to know that it was THEM that got me thinking about the issue, and THEY showed me how ugly the complimentarian position can be (it isn’t always that ugly) and how unkind/unloving/ungracious. That was when I started reading other thoughts and have come away more on the egalitarian side, although not completely at this point. Still thinking….
Molly, Thanks for peeking in! I’m just happy to know that you are alive and well out there! How are classes? LOL about the salad. I hear ya’.
April 14th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Funny, Chewy, that the Baylys were the tipping point for you. I’ve gotten a few emails from people who read my comments on the Bayly blog and said the same thing. It was “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood,” that textbook of complementarianism, that actually was my tipping point. I was a lip-service comp before then, but the arguments in that book were so shabby that in almost an instant, I had a blinding moment of clarity and realized egal-ism made far more sense biblically.
Molly, I have heard women leading be blamed for divorce, drug abuse, spousal abuse, child abuse, child neglect, and … this one always cracks me up … the rising epidemic of obesity.
I was banned last week from the Bayly blog - for asking a question they couldn’t answer. Or rather, no matter how they answered it, the patriarchal paradigm would not look like the perfect solution they claim it to be. I asked it respectfully and wanting to know how they would handle the situation - and got booted off for heresy. Of course, they were ascribing all kinds of sinister motives to my question, which is why they claimed they wouldn’t answer it.
Molly, I MISS YOUR BLOG!!!! Please don’t take it down, even archived it is such a blessing to so many people.
April 14th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
I think the whole “who’s right and who’s wrong” question is simply a deflection of the real issue: walking closely in discipleship with our Lord, whose Holy Spirit will guide us.
No self-proclaimed “authorities over” us are ever going to be an acceptable substitute for the Holy Spirit within us. If God has called us to (fill in the blank here), God will equip us to do exactly that. And if it doesn’t fit in with the traditions that some would require us to follow, the One we answer to should matter more to us than those who tell us we’re wrong to think that God is calling and equipping us.
Now if somebody’s operating as an independent agent, outside a trustworthy body of believers, and comes up with some bizarre notion (like “I’m Jesus in a new incarnation” or “Don’t pay income taxes”), that’s a different matter. But that’s not what’s happening when women commit to obeying God’s call to leadership in the church, or husbands and wives commit to submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ. And it’s precisely such people that certain groups of Christians are calling heretics, disobedient, selfish, etc. and ridiculing and lying about in public.
And on THAT, I really don’t hesitate to say they’re wrong to so mischaracterize their brothers and sisters in Christ.
April 20th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Behold, how pleasant it is to come across a Christian blog dealing with gender in a way that (gasp!) actually acknowledges the Christian authenticity of people on various sides of the matter and that (mirabile dictu!) actually engages in thoughtful dialogue without feeling obliged to defend positions with CERTAINTY and by THE CLEAR WORD OF GOD and THE COLLECTIVE JUDGMENT OF THE CHURCH and PLAIN REASON and IF YOU DON’T AGREE WITH ME IN EVERY PARTICULAR THEN YOU MUST BE A NON-CHRISTIAN AND AN IDIOT AND A WOLF IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING AND–man, I’m tired of shouting…
Just stopping by, but thanks for important point you made in your post and for the charitable words about my little book.
Brother John
April 26th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
I was just browsing the internet… I like your outlook on this complicated issue. I agree with your conclusion except in respects to “women pastors/elders”. I do believe that would be a grave sin. If indeed teaching is such a high calling and indeed women are created differently than men, I don’t think mixing the two would have anything less than a devestating effect on God’s flock… and of course, on the other end, oppression when it comes to the details of more conservative complimentarianism is a huge devestation as well. I just don’t see any good scriptural evidence (so far) for women pastors. I think it’s a safe bet that they shouldn’t be “pastors”.
It’s a big issue and I don’t mean to simplify it like that… blah… I probably shouldn’t have posted this… I’m having trouble explaining an issue that I am still trying to work out in my own mind…
…just passing by…
Thanks!
April 26th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Hi Greg,
I appreciate you stopping by and adding your .02! Like you, I’m still working out the issue in my own mind….
~chewymom
April 28th, 2007 at 11:21 am
I agree with Molly about the salad. Yuck! I feel like I have about 10 lbs of waste material in my lower colon.
Anyone take a look at the Bayly blog lately? Just read the thread “And Women shall rule over them…” and see how a woman named Joan was treated. It didn’t take long to call her a heretic and a complainer and a wolf in sheep’s clothing who is trying to devour the innocent sheep with her false teaching.
But, take a look at the heresy she was “teaching”. There is NONE.
Honestly, I am surpised I am not “Finally Feminist”.
The Bayly blog and the CCC-forum at yahoo are two places that could drive any woman struggling with feeling like she is loved and respected and appreciated over to the egalitarian side. They are their own worst enemies. They will stand before God and they will have to find out just how many women they drove to be feminists. They have no love for anyone who disagrees with them on either point.
I was kicked off of both forums and I am a complementarian! No lie. Why? Because I don’t hate the egals and I don’t tolerate mistreating my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. I am of the mind that the bible restricts the role of pastor/elder to males but not outside of the church. The Baylys say that no where should a woman have a position of influence over any man. I don’t see the verses in the bible teaching this. It is clearly speaking TO the church.
I also disagree with how *some* define the word “submission” and what that means. Most of it is manmade tradition being taught as biblical doctrine. Just think of Debi Pearl’s book.
I was just thinking how thankful I am that I am a woman. I don’t gnash my teeth when either a male or female police officer pulls me over. I submit to authority without thought of their gender. I am not hung up on my position, my title, or that others should be submitting to me or that I am above submitting to someone of the other gender. I would hate to go through life examining everything like this. It must be very stressful and it must be very discouraging.
John, I haven’t read your book yet but I agree with your above comment. It is comforting to know that others see exactly what I have been seeing. Honestly, it gets very depressing sometimes.
March 11th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
I totally agree with Maggie so what more can I say? Except thank you, Maggie for your comment.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Hi there, I definitely have not come to start any arguments, but I would like to defend Tim Bayly in one area. While he chooses strong words in his blog, and it may appear to many of you to be abrasive, I’m sure that you haven’t met him in person. I have, and I can tell you that there’s something powerful about the way he looks at and treats all women. He loves and serves them in a way that I have seen in very few men.
Some of you may refuse to believe that… it honestly doesn’t matter to me. Appearances can be deceiving, but I’m telling you the truth, and I would hope that you take my words as an encouragement instead of an attack, because I have no intentions of starting a fight here. God Bless.
Alex
July 17th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Forgive my coming in so late to the discussion. You’ve had some great postings on this train of thought. I commend the quality of your blog’s exchange. In particular, I appreciate your raising the issue of possible consequences of the varying views of gender.
Nevertheless, I suspect your analysis carries a flaw. You assume we can know the consequences of our actions. That’s a large assumption. I fear that in far too many situations that simply isn’t the case. We don’t know or cannot know the consequences. In fact, disobedience often has results that are unforeseen and far larger than we suspect. So even though you raise a fascinating point, it doesn’t help. Adopting one of the other of the views could be far more devastating or detrimental than you calculate. The world is simply too fallen.
Consequently, study the Word. Do what you believe to be right and biblical regardless of the consequences. Solid exegesis, I argue, trumps suspected results every time.
September 11th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
I am egal and I used to be non-egal as that was all I had been taught. I will say I see egalism as lining up more with the basic Christian principles of love, justice, freedom, etc. I would only be non-egal if that was the ONLY possible interpretation of some text and that is simply not the case.
I am glad to hear that someone became egal from reading non-egal literature. I study both sides, as I do not want to be wrong and I do learn from both sides. I do admit I need to limit my exposure to non-egal teaching as it can get too depressing FOR ME to read it for too long at one time.